[Guest]

It seems there is a lot of controversy over this topic on Brainden.... Understandable... Well I just mean spiritual as in God but also as in ghosts and things. What is your opinion?

[Guest]

But why? They didn't meet God's standards.

They never knew the standards. If they didnt go to heaven it wouldnt be fair. He would just be proving satans accusations .think about abortioned babies.

EDIT:This is my 100th post yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Edited April 25, 2009 by dath244

[Guest]

Curious... I had no idea the experiment had been physically performed. By whom? Do you know of a link, or journal article?. I would be very interested to read about it.

To be honest, I'm not very familiar with Wheeler's work either, but if memory and understanding both serve, the outcome depended on how you decided to take the measurement -- you could not simultaneously observe both results. I was also under the impression that the thought experiment depended on the presence of other photons -- you could imagine a photon interfering with itself if you chose to consider the beam as a wave and look at the interference pattern, but if you chose to capture photons, you would either "see" it, or not. I'm curious: did they release a single photon in the physical experiment?

Yes, a single photon at a time. Here's the wikipedia link that gives a good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's...oice_experiment

And here's a quote from ScienceNOW, written by Adrian Cho, that gives a lay summary of the 2007 result:

According to quantum mechanics, light can be either a graceful rippling wave or a hail of bulletlike particles, depending on how you look at it. Now, an experiment shows that an observer can make the choice retroactively, after light has entered a measuring apparatus. The result shows that reality is truly in the eye of the beholder.

A single dollop of light, or photon, must be described by a flowing quantum wave that gives the probability of finding it at any particular place and time. At the same time, the photon acts a bit like an indivisible bullet: When observed with a particle detector, it produces a distinct signal, like a pebble pinging off a car door. And things get weirder. The quantum wave can split in two and recombine, like ripples flowing around a stump in a pond, to create striking "interference" effects that determine which way the recombined wave flows. On the other hand, it's simply impossible to split a photon at a fork in the road. If there is no way to eventually put the pieces back together, the photon acts like a particle and goes one way or the other.

Even weirder still, the choice to allow the waves to recombine or not can be made even after the photon passes the fork where it should have split--or not. Famed physicist John Archibald Wheeler realized that nearly 30 years ago and dreamed up an experiment to prove the point. Now Jean-François Roch of the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan in France and colleagues have performed the experiment. The researchers shot photons one by one at a half-silvered mirror, or "beam splitter," to cleave the quantum wave describing each photon. After traveling different distances, the two halves sloshed back together at a second beam splitter 50 meters away, which could recombine them. The experimenters could randomly switch this second beam splitter on and off electronically well after the photon had passed the first one.

If the second splitter was on, interference between the two pieces directed the recombined wave of probability toward one or the other of two detectors, depending on the difference in the path lengths. If the second beam splitter was turned off so the waves couldn't recombine, then the photon took one path or the other with 50-50 probability, and equal numbers of photons reached detectors. The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality.

[Izzy]

They never knew the standards. If they didnt go to heaven it wouldnt be fair. He would just be proving satans accusations .think about abortioned babies.

Though, you assume God would know who would grow up and sin anyway? Again, God knew these babies would be aborted before they were. So, aborted babies are predetermined to go to Hell, thanks to nothing they've done themselves. God is a baby-doomer..

[Guest]

Though, you assume God would know who would grow up and sin anyway? Again, God knew these babies would be aborted before they were. So, aborted babies are predetermined to go to Hell, thanks to nothing they've done themselves. God is a baby-doomer..

Once again i dont believe in hell. God does not judge someone for what they would have done in the future. Jesus died on the cross to forgive everyones sins. those who dont except the forgiveness perish. But abortioned babies never had the chance God is too kind to doom someone who never had a chance.

[Izzy]

Wait wait wait. You claimed to believe EVERYTHING in the Bible, but refuse Hell? I assume that's pretty much only because it isn't to your family's liking, much the same as other Bible verses that aren't taken literally anymore.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Izzy

[Guest]

Wait wait wait. You claimed to believe EVERYTHING in the Bible, but refuse Hell? I assume that's pretty much only because it isn't to your family's liking, much the same as other Bible verses that aren't taken literally anymore.

A while back i did say everything was a strong word. I guess what i mean when i say there is no hell, is that hell is not eternal.heres what my religion teaches:

Adventists teach that the resurrection of the righteous will take place at the second coming of Jesus, while the resurrection of the wicked will occur after the millennium of Revelation 20. They reject the traditional doctrine of hell as a state of everlasting conscious torment, believing instead that the wicked will be permanently destroyed after the millennium. The theological term for this teaching is Annihilationism.

[Izzy]

Haha, Annihilationism. Coolest word ever. Whatever, dude. You're religion is just another little subsection of Christianity and Islam (whichever came first), no more right than its parents.

Who came up with Annihilationism? What book do you follow?

[Guest]

So I just stumbled upon this section and this post... happy to have done so. I used to participate in another website with discussions like this but work got to be too much so I really hope this one will be better, especially since BrainDen has a more intellectual crowd than my former site, ironically called BD as well (Boxden).

Moral of the story is I miss good old fashion debates. Izzy, you and I debated once before and I look forward to more.

Quick intro:

I am 24, male and live in Wisconsin. I have a bachelor;s degree in biology with an emphasis on human evolution. I am about 98% atheist, 2% agnostic. I could argue until I am blue in the face about ID and other attempts of fundamentalists to insert Christianity into the schools and I look forward to doing so, but it appears this thread is pretty thorough already. We'll see where it leads.

[Izzy]

Kawnsentrait! Good to have you back. We seem to be on the same 'team' this time.

[Guest]

Yes, a single photon at a time. Here's the wikipedia link that gives a good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's...oice_experiment

And here's a quote from ScienceNOW, written by Adrian Cho, that gives a lay summary of the 2007 result:

The excerpt says "light can be either a graceful rippling wave or a hail of bulletlike particles", and that "the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter." Both statements are technically incorrect. Light is not made of particles and waves, nor is it something that chooses to behave like one or the other, retroactively or otherwise. Rather it is something that has some properties of both particles and waves, and always behaves as both. Which of those properties you observe depends on which you were looking for.

Nonetheless, it appears you can indeed "split" a single photon. On that, I stand corrected. I suppose its quantum probability field is being scattered. Looks like I have some physics to bone up on...

[Guest]

what do you mean by what book?

[Izzy]

...

Bible (if so, which version), Koran, etc.

[Guest]

Yes, there is a spiritual world. I am a baptist Christian who believes in heaven and hell, but not the Catholic purgatory. After all, the idea of purgatory was never in the Bible. There is also nothing to support the existence of ghosts. Why is only the theory of evolution only in schools? It has more holes in it than a Dutch dam made of Swiss cheese. For more info about the spiritual world, see the book of Revelations.

[plasmid]

Yes, there is a spiritual world. I am a baptist Christian who believes in heaven and hell, but not the Catholic purgatory. After all, the idea of purgatory was never in the Bible. There is also nothing to support the existence of ghosts. Why is only the theory of evolution only in schools? It has more holes in it than a Dutch dam made of Swiss cheese. For more info about the spiritual world, see the book of Revelations.

Please inform the new swine flu that it could not possibly have evolved and therefore does not exist.

Perhaps it will listen to your reasoning and be convinced to stop killing people.

Edited April 28, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

Yes, there is a spiritual world. I am a baptist Christian who believes in heaven and hell, but not the Catholic purgatory.

The Catholics, or at least the Roman Catholics, don't believe in the Catholic purgatory anymore either. Apparently the revelation (allowing inerrant edicts) an earlier Pope had was superseded by one 'given' to the previous, which declared that there wasn't a purgatory after all.

And how may RCs do you suppose kept on believing in the inerrant word of their Pope and all the rest of it anyway.

After all, the idea of purgatory was never in the Bible. There is also nothing to support the existence of ghosts.

Got ya: "If it's in the buybull it's true and really happened, if not then it's imaginary."

So you rely solely on that much edited and translated book (which version, and why?) evidence from observable reality be damned.

So; no evolution (see below of course) but rabbits really do chew their cud.

Why is only the theory of evolution only in schools?

What ARE you talking about? Only in schools?!

It has more holes in it than a Dutch dam made of Swiss cheese.

:lol:

For more info about the spiritual world, see the book of Revelations.

Read it; I prefer Lord of the Rings; more realistic.

[Izzy]

Why is only the theory of evolution only in schools? It has more holes in it than a Dutch dam made of Swiss cheese.

Because ID has been proven to be bull sh*t countless times?

What holes? Please don't tell me you're referring to gaps in the fossil records? If you are, you'd be surprised to learn how much we would still know about our evolutionary past without them, and with fossils alone or with no fossils at all, evolution would still be completely supported. You're clearly unaware of the rigorousness of the scientific method. Scientists don't come up with things just to disprove your silly gods, most could care less. The reason evolution has survived as established fact is because there's such an overwhelming amount of evidence for it; you'd have to be a moron not to accept it. As Richard Dawkins said, "If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one."

Maybe, just maybe, before completely revealing your ignorance for the world to see, read a book, and quit whining about an established fact that you don't agree with only because it doesn't fit with your scriptures. I'm sure if the tables were turned and the Bible mentioned evolution, this would be a much welcomed concept, one that would win the Templeton prize, no doubt.

[Izzy]

Please inform the new swine flu that it could not possibly have evolved and therefore does not exist.

Perhaps it will listen to your reasoning and be convinced to stop killing people.

:lol:

[Guest]

Imeant that schools only teach evolution. Obviously, someone's quite the atheist, but if evolution were true, why are the more "primitive" life forms still here? If we actually evolved from apes, and yet they are still here, then there would be no reason for them evolving.

[Izzy]

Why would a species die off just because of evolving DNA? I assume you know how reproduction works. Mommy-Ape and Daddy-Ape have a Baby-Ape, but oh noes, Baby-Ape has a slight gene mutation, still being ape-like, but not like mommy and daddy. Evolution is a fairly slow process, which is still going on, and eventually Baby-Ape has more Baby-Apes, all with other subtle gene differences, and eventually you get the homo sapiens, a species of mutated apes. If the originating species dies off, it's because of a failure to adapt, not because other species may have evolved from it.

'Why are there still apes around?' is kind of like asking 'Why are the parents of children with birth defects still around?', or 'If Judaism evolved from Christianity, why are there Christian still around?'

[Guest]

One, Christianity came from Judaism. Two, how could living organisms come from nonliving matter. A chemical reaction won't cut it.

[Guest]

Science can't explain everything, such as what happened before the "Big Bang." Also, this thread is about a spiritual world, not proving Atheism right.

[Izzy]

1. Whatever, you get the point.

2. Bacteria forms in damp areas. I wouldn't consider 'dampness' a form of life. Moisture is, in a sense matter, but non-living.

Really, your God of the gaps approach isn't going to get you far. I can easily counter with "Well, where did God come from?", your response probably being "He was always here." If science can explain much of the same things through solid, verified facts, what's the point of a god that goes against these facts but was magically always here? Unless your god wasn't always here. Then, where did he come form?

[Izzy]

Science can't explain everything, such as what happened before the "Big Bang." Also, this thread is about a spiritual world, not proving Atheism right.

Before the Big Bang there was nothing. It's the actual Big Bang bit we're having problems with, but nothing I can't see science failing to solve within the decade.

I'm not trying to prove atheism right. I'm advocating evolution, which you 'dissed' in your first post in this thread. I'm merely demonstrating how your view 'has more holes in it than a Dutch dam made of Swiss cheese.'

[Guest]

If you think like that, you obviously don't understand religion. Haven't you heard of the miracles when people come back to life after 30 minutes? However, don't base your concepts about Christianity about what I have to say.

[Izzy]

No, you pretty clearly don't understand/want to understand science. Childhood indoctrination, what can I do?

Citation please? I'm sure there is a logical explanation.